WHICH CREATION STORY?

Sullivan County Tenn ^ | Unknown | Rev. James W. Watkins

[Luis Gonzalez]

Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe?

For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text.

The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.

The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not.

Many serious students of Scripture consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-literal, pre-history type literature, with Abram in Genesis. 12:1 being the first literal historical figure in the Bible. This understanding of Genesis causes an uproar in some quarters. In most church communities, little of this textual study has filtered down to the pew. But, in their professional training, vast numbers of clergy have been exposed to this type of literary scriptural analysis.

In my over 28 years as a pastor, I have encountered many people who are unnecessarily conflicted because they have been made to believe that, to be faithfully religious, one must take a literal view of the Genesis creation accounts. Faced with their scientific understandings going one direction and their spiritual search another, many have felt compelled to give up their spiritual search altogether. This all too common reaction is an unnecessary shame!

So, the next time someone asks you if you believe the Biblical story of creation, just remember the correct reply: "To which Biblical creation story do you refer?"

[papertyger]

Thank you for the link. I'm very interested in these ancient writings.

However, could you summarize for me why the traditional view is inferior to this dissenting, perhaps even deconstructed, view?

[papertyger]

I don't think JW or Mormons accept Jesus as their saviour

That is not correct.

They reject Jesus as deity.

[ARridgerunner]

placemark

[Accygirl]

I surely hope that both tidbits would be included in a Bible since A. the Israelite elites who wrote the Bible spent time in Babylon in Exile where they surely would have known about the Babylonian court and B. the Hittites were still around in the 9th/8th centuries B.C. as "bit players" and Israelite neighbors, which is how the Hebrew Bible describes them.

I didn't saw that everything in the Bible was completely untrue. In fact, the Hebrew Bible is very "rooted" in the Israelites' world, the 8th century BC Near East; however, that doesn't mean that every single character in the Hebrew Bible actually existed and that even the more "historical" characters are accurately portrayed.

[Snowbelt Man]

i live in the same area as james watkins. he's a liberal activist on every political issue. Jesus beleived the law and the prophets literally. in John's gospel, He says the Scripture cannot be broken. the only Scripture that He had was the Pentateuch and the prophets. In Matthew, He says that the Scripture is accurate to every "jot and tittle." (even the smallest punctuation marks)

you may be religious and not believe the Scripture - you're just not a follower of Christ. in other words, you're not a Christian. If Adam didn't sin - then there was no need for the sacrifice on the cross of the sinless lamb. if the garden of eden didn't exist and adam and eve didn't introduce sin into the human race - then the whole basis of Christianity is false (man's reconciliation to God through the sacrifice of His only begotten son made necessary because of sin).

you can't have it both ways. either you believe what Christ believed or you don't. if you don't, you're not a Christian. just like a marxist who doesn't believe in Marx's "materialist conception of history" is not really a marxist - by definition not theology.

i have no problem with people questioning the validity of the Scriptures. my problem is with people who want to pick and choose what Scriptures they believe and then insist that they are "Christians." by definition - they are not.

[Elsie]

I've always wondered why any Christian would "shun" anyone. That, to me, seems like a real denial of the core of Christianity.

This is where the concept comes...

---

NIV 1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
13. God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

---

Probably the polygamy of the early LDS organization fit them into the 'sexually immoral' label. Perhaps the 'idolatry' would fit on the strange concept of the Christ.

[Elsie]

Personal attacks on people not present and able to defend themselves when opinions on religious matters differ seems to be a staple with some Christians.

I'm confused. To what 'personal' attack are you refering??

[Elsie]

Then I go on-line and read this.

Isn't 'coincidence' wonderful! ;^)

[Elsie]

I've noticed some vague ramblings as well....

[Elsie]

The BigBang....

E=Mc²

Therefore...

M=E/c²

---

The question is:

Where did the ENERGY come from, to create this Mass?

[Elsie]

 

Matthew 7:7  "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

 

 

Ah yes; the great verse that is used by those who do not wish to be judged by mere humans.

 

Too bad they tend to ignore others...

 

---

NIV Luke 12:57
  "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?

 

 

NIV John 7:24
   Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."    (Said Jesus)

NIV Acts 15:19
   "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (Says St. Luke)

 

NIV Romans 14:1
   Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
 12.  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
 13.  God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
 

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 6:2-4
 2.  Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
 3.  Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
 4.  Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!

 

 

Paul did a LOT of 'judging'....

NIV 1 Corinthians 2:15-16
 15.  The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
 16.  "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 5:3
   Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 7:25
   Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 7:40
   In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

 

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:15
  I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 11:13
  Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

And Paul said this:

1 Corinthians 11:1  Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

[Elsie]

...was biased because Josephus was more interested in explaining to his fellow Jews why they shouldn't have been revolting.

This is 'editorializing', not inaccuracy.

[Elsie]

I merely wondered what the 'basic rules' were; as you understand them.

[Elsie]

Both of you!

Step back, take a breath, count to ten if necessary.

I think we ALL are taking offence when none was intended, at least as I see it.

[Elsie]

So which version is right?

both

[papertyger]

So you're simply content to undermine the veracity of the Bible in a generalized, non-specific way?

[plain talk]

I also see one story. The first chapter of Genesis is the big picture, the overview

Exactly. I would highly recommend that many posters on this thread take an inter-denominational bible study course on Genesis, i.e. Bible Study Fellowship. There are obviously numerous fringe beliefs out there but BSF is at least one source that is based on representation from the mainstream Christian denominations.

[Elsie]

 It seems to me that Jesus was not interested in exclusivity in his teachings.

 

 

 

 

Yeah; I always wondered about THIS:

---

 

 

Matthew 15:21-28

 21.  Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
 22.  A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
 23.  Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
 24.  He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 
 25.  The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
 26.  He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
 27.  "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
 28.  Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

[Elsie]

Historians in the ancient world were interested in getting a certain point across/ teaching a certain lesson more than they were stating the facts.

I guess ol' King Solomon was right!

There IS nothing new under the sun!